Sen.Kerry? Liberal? No Way

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
1,893
Location
Ky
Kerry,the most liberal of liberals in the US Senate,here's proof.


The following article can be found at http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm

The Washington Times

National Journal, the non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine that covers Washington politics and policy, issued its congressional vote ratings for 2003 last week. Not surprisingly, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is increasingly looking like a cinch to be his party's presidential nominee, found himself in familiar territory. Once again, Mr. Kerry has staked out the far-left fringe on the National Journal's liberal-conservative continuum.
On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.
Each year, National Journal selects dozens of key votes (62 for the Senate in 2003) and divides them among three categories of issues: economic, social and foreign policy. On economic votes, Mr. Kerry tied with six other Democrats to claim the highest ranking of 93. It was the third year in a row that Mr. Kerry established himself among the select, small group whose members were cumulatively ranked as the most liberal in the Senate on economic matters.
Because Mr. Kerry spent much of last year campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, he did not cast enough official votes to obtain a specific ranking in the social and foreign-policy categories. (Suffice to say that the votes that he did cast were sufficiently to the left that his composite score still placed him at the top of the liberal scale.) Moreover, in 16 of the social and foreign-policy votes that Mr. Kerry missed, he announced his position on the issue. And according to tabulations by CQ Weekly (another non-ideological journal covering Congress), Mr. Kerry's publicly announced position was identical to the vote cast by Mr. Kennedy on 14 of those occasions, or 88 percent of the time. It should also be noted that during 10 years of Mr. Kerry's Senate career, including 2002, not a single senator was ranked more liberal than Mr. Kerry on social-issue votes. In addition, regarding CQ's separate survey of "key votes" in 2003 on which Mr. Kerry either cast a vote or publicly announced his position, it was identical to Mr. Kennedy's vote 100 percent of the time.
When questioned at Sunday's Democratic debate in New York City about reclaiming his distinction as the most liberal U.S. senator in 2003, Mr. Kerry called it "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." He asserted that "labels are so silly in American politics." But Mr. Kerry often indulges in ascribing "right-wing" or "far-right" labels to President Bush. For example, on what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th birthday, Mr. Kerry accused the president of "threatening civil rights on behalf of right-wing ideologues." Apparently, Mr. Kerry doesn't have anything against labels. He just doesn't like the "liberal" label.
In fact, the recent analyses of 2003 votes by National Journal and CQ Weekly clearly confirm what Mr. Kerry has spent two decades doing in the Senate — and that is establishing himself as one of that body's most liberal members. If Mr. Kerry doesn't like the votes selected by National Journal and CQ Weekly, perhaps he should look at the vote ratings compiled by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the premier, self-styled liberal organization in America. Based on the 20 votes each year that it considers to be the most important to liberals, ADA assigns a "liberal quotient" to each member of Congress. Mr. Kerry's career "liberal quotient" is a solid 92 percent. That ranks him higher than Mr. Kennedy (90 percent), establishing Mr. Kerry irrefutably as the "liberal senator from Massachusetts." No wonder Mr. Kerry is running as fast as he can from the liberal record he has spent 20 years compiling. It is a record this page will be meticulously reviewing as the campaign moves forward.
 
It is fine, as long as you are not in a position of power or influence.

When they have a chance to apply their biscuithead thinking to things that matter look out.

cheers.gif
patriot.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Is being a liberal a bad thing?

It all depends upon your priorities and expectations. If you want to be forced to worship Islam then be a Liberal. If you want the US to be under the control of the UN(with the US still footing the bill for the UN)then be Liberal. If you want even higher taxes and more welfare, then be a liberal. If you want even more PC rules and total elimination of non Muslim White Males in the US then be a Liberal. If you want a weak military, aka Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, then be a Liberal.

I'm sure there are many more so let my fellow BITOG's join in. I'm fair so the Liberals are free to join in. After all it's a free country, much to the Liberals consternation
grin.gif
.

Whimsey
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Is being a liberal a bad thing?

--

Rather than talk about the label liberal, perhaps we need to dig into some of these votes. Has he been a part of the obstructionists delaying or killing Bush's appointments? Has he voted against defense and intelligence spending? Affirmative action? Government regulations? Tort reform? Did he vote to acquit Clinton?
 
The Kerry's are worth approx. 1 billion dollars.
The Edwards and the Cheney's are worth approx. 50 million each. The Bushes are worth 15 million.
In 2003 the Kerry's paid approx. 90,000 in income taxes while the Bushes paid approx. 240,000.
It's interesting that Kerry wants to raise our taxes but he doesn't like paying them himself.
ANOTHER LIBERAL HYPOCRITE!
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Is being a liberal a bad thing?

Not a bad thing, it's an ideology and a way of thinking.

Being this most liberal of all liberals IS a bad thing. Just as being the most conservative of all conservatives is a bad thing IMO.

I'm more of a middle ground type of person. Bush is very conservative also, but IMO closer to the center. It's too bad the least radical people never seam to make it into higher office.

-T
 
quote:

Originally posted by Whimsey:

quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Is being a liberal a bad thing?

It all depends upon your priorities and expectations. If you want to be forced to worship Islam then be a Liberal. If you want the US to be under the control of the UN(with the US still footing the bill for the UN)then be Liberal. If you want even higher taxes and more welfare, then be a liberal. If you want even more PC rules and total elimination of non Muslim White Males in the US then be a Liberal. If you want a weak military, aka Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, then be a Liberal.

I'm sure there are many more so let my fellow BITOG's join in. I'm fair so the Liberals are free to join in. After all it's a free country, much to the Liberals consternation
grin.gif
.

Whimsey


My, my, it takes a lot of nerve to complain about 'PC', when all you have to do is voice disagreement with the administration to be labeled a traitor, communist, socialist, whatever.
 
quote:

My, my, it takes a lot of nerve to complain about 'PC', when all you have to do is voice disagreement with the administration to be labeled a traitor, communist, socialist, whatever.

Can you give me examples of this? If you mean on this board, well, that has definitely gone both ways. The liberal attack machine, at least in my biased eyes, is far more vehement than the conservatives have been.

Bush most defintely has his issues, but the flip flop artist Kerry gives me the impression that he thinks the populace has the collective intelligence of one of his pets. Edwards disgusts me with his class warfare rhetoric. Everything in their campaign seems to be based on outlandish slogans meant to rile the masses. Bush, on the other hand, says what he means and does what he says. For sure, there is much to disagree with Bush about, but where he stands is always very clear, and in my mind he is far more middle of the road than "the most liberal of liberals in the US Senate"
 
With all of the flip-flopping charges, I would have expected his rating to be closer to the middle than the extreme. NOT saying he would be rated a moderate, just saying that with his reputation of being on both sides of issues, he shouldn't be at the extreme of any rating.
 
quote:

Originally posted by pbm:
The Kerry's are worth approx. 1 billion dollars.
The Edwards and the Cheney's are worth approx. 50 million each. The Bushes are worth 15 million.
In 2003 the Kerry's paid approx. 90,000 in income taxes while the Bushes paid approx. 240,000.
It's interesting that Kerry wants to raise our taxes but he doesn't like paying them himself.
ANOTHER LIBERAL HYPOCRITE!


most of that money from kerry is his wife. the heiress of heinz ketchup. I thought the bushes had more money than 15 million. oil money hello!
 
Those figures were published in the NY Daily News (not exactly a Conservative newspaper). The Bush's are the "poorest" of the 4 candidates.
As far as Theresa "Heinz" Kerry she got her money
by marrying a rich conservative (her 1st husband).
Now she donates his money to ultra liberal causes.
John Kerry makes the Clintons look like conservatives.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MarkC:


My, my, it takes a lot of nerve to complain about 'PC', when all you have to do is voice disagreement with the administration to be labeled a traitor, communist, socialist, whatever. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Funny, I don't "recall"(a favorite defense of the Clintons and Democrats
rolleyes.gif
) calling you a traitor or communist because you disagree with the current administration. However if you are a true hard core modern Liberal/Progressive then I do think of you as a socialist. There is nothing to be ashamed of for standing up proudly for what you believe in. I even believe that there are a good number of Democrat Representatives in Congress that belong to some Democrat Socialist organization and are proud of it. If you are a Liberal don't hide from it. As for name calling I think it's those open minded "Liberals" that have a tendency to call Conservatives "Right wing kooks", fanatics, Nazi's, Taliban, Bigots, Religious(Oh my G-d!) and Racists. I'm sure there are many other derogatory names but I've become numb to reading and listening to them in the "Lame Steam News media".

I find it amusing that many "Liberals" resort to name calling instead of intelligent discourse. Mind you, not all. My brother-in-law in Austin TX is a hardcore liberal and can drive me crazy but he never resorts to derogatory name calling and proudly wears the badge of Liberal/Socialist and I respect him for that. Though I do feel sorry for my sister
rolleyes.gif
. But I guess since they've been married for over 20 years and she's a conservative it's ok. I look at it as "just" punishment for him
grin.gif
lol.gif
.

Whimsey
 
quote:

Originally posted by Whimsey:
snip
I find it amusing that many "Liberals" resort to name calling instead of intelligent discourse.
snip...
Whimsey


What else are you going to do when you done have any real issues?
 
I guess what I was trying to say that there had been a time where liberal idealism was not a bad thing. There has been such a swing to appeasement and pandering that "liberal" has taken on a negative connotation. Let's consider that a vast majority of paeple who proclaim themselves "liberal" really would like what's best for everyone.

In doing this, let's remember that the vast majority of "conservatives" want this as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top